• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Darn Simple Fix The Economy Idea... Pick It To Pieces

Plecostomus

Commodore
Friend of mine passed this idea on to me.

We have 45 million people in the workforce over the age of 50. Give each of them two million dollars and tell them "ok you're done. Retired. Bye!"

These folks will then go out and pay off mortgage debts, buy houses and cars and generally stimulate the economy.

Total cost, around a hundred-million bucks.

Now, pick it to pieces. Sounds good on screen here but WHY wouldn't this work?
 
Last edited:
I don't know what you fixed....

45 million people x $2 each would be 90 million bucks, that's what you're still describing.

If you gave them each $2000 you're looking at about 100 trillion bucks, or about 100 years worth of the current budget deficit.

Now, I'm not usually one to subscribe to right wing slogans, but you're kind of mortgaging the future there.

Although I agree it would be simple.
 
I don't know what you fixed....

45 million people x $2 each would be 90 million bucks, that's what you're still describing.

If you gave them each $2000 you're looking at about 100 trillion bucks, or about 100 years worth of the current budget deficit.

Now, I'm not usually one to subscribe to right wing slogans, but you're kind of mortgaging the future there.

Although I agree it would be simple.


My friend... is a wizard when it comes to doing anything involving gears. Gear ratios, design, cutting, you name it. Man is simply amazing.

Anything not involving gears... just kicks his ass. :guffaw:

But aside from the order-of-magnitude error would such a program actually work or would we just create 45 million two-millionaires?
 
45M people x $2M is a pretty big number. ;)

Too big to be practical.

The general principle of enriching people at government expense so they spend money is PRECISELY what all the pro-economic stimulus argument is about. More historically, read up on the relative merits of classical economics, Keynesian economics, monetarism and Ricardian Equivalence for a more detailed look at whether it will work or not and whether the gain is worth the pain.

(my personal call... nope)
 
Well I don't need the econobabble to see that it's far too much money given to far too many people whom we can't control.

Many many of those people will invest it in a foolish gamble, many of them will waste it on crap like hookers and blow... well maybe not but they will waste it and then suddenly find themselves without a job at age 50 and nothing to show for it.
 
Well I don't need the econobabble to see that it's far too much money given to far too many people whom we can't control.

Many many of those people will invest it in a foolish gamble, many of them will waste it on crap like hookers and blow... well maybe not but they will waste it and then suddenly find themselves without a job at age 50 and nothing to show for it.

That's not actually the problem, economically speaking. All that spending you've described is actually productive, adding to GDP usefully. The real problem, leaving aside the "econobabble", is that they WON'T spend it all on hookers, blow and gambling but instead will do really crappy things (from a stimulus perspective) like sticking it in a bank or spending it on stuff that's subject to inflationary pressures.
 
Well I don't need the econobabble to see that it's far too much money given to far too many people whom we can't control.

Many many of those people will invest it in a foolish gamble, many of them will waste it on crap like hookers and blow... well maybe not but they will waste it and then suddenly find themselves without a job at age 50 and nothing to show for it.

That's not actually the problem, economically speaking. All that spending you've described is actually productive, adding to GDP usefully. The real problem, leaving aside the "econobabble", is that they WON'T spend it all on hookers, blow and gambling but instead will do really crappy things (from a stimulus perspective) like sticking it in a bank or spending it on stuff that's subject to inflationary pressures.


True... Very true.

The basic premise was to get these people out of the workforce and retired creating openings for 45 million people while trying to get 45 million new cars on the road and wipe out huge chunks of personal debt.

Of course life isn't Sim City, people don't do as I tell them because I click'd the screen. :)
 
Well I don't need the econobabble to see that it's far too much money given to far too many people whom we can't control.

Many many of those people will invest it in a foolish gamble, many of them will waste it on crap like hookers and blow...
You say it like its a bad thing? :angel: So where does the solid gold stripper pole I was gonna put in my living room figure in? :D

That's not actually the problem, economically speaking. All that spending you've described is actually productive, adding to GDP usefully. The real problem, leaving aside the "econobabble", is that they WON'T spend it all on hookers, blow and gambling but instead will do really crappy things (from a stimulus perspective) like sticking it in a bank or spending it on stuff that's subject to inflationary pressures.
Leave it to you to be a kill joy even though you might be right. However Im willing to bet that a lot of folks would put that money towards debt retirement and would spoil themselves just a bit. But until confidence is restored (I.e. the Investment banks start lending to the commercial banks and the commercial banks start lending to corporations and individuals) a huge spending spree wont happen. That the crux of whats affecting everyone right now. Everyone is scared shitless and wont part with a dime. Personaly if my gut feeling about future inflationary pressures bear out, most folks would be better off just blowing what they have now.
 
Well, if we were looking at it seriously, I'd say that it's not an efficient age group to give the money to.

On the whole, most people over 50 have already built their careers, paid their mortgages, built up their businesses, etc. If they are at all successful they're looking at their retirement upcoming, and while an extra 2 mil would be nice, it isn't going to get built up into a new enterprise or even go into some new larger house.

For people over 50 who aren't successful, they aren't all of a sudden going to be good businessmen, smart investors, not alchoholics or not addicted to gambling or not whatever it was that held them back their whole lives.

If you wanted to target a group to get the most bang for your buck, spend the money on people entering college and university, pay for their tuition, books and lodging for 4 years and then throw in a few thousand start-up money when they graduate. You'd see the economy take off for a fraction of the amount you're looking to spend on old folk - and I'm in that old folk age group, so just to be clear, you're wasting it if you give it to me.
 
Personaly if my gut feeling about future inflationary pressures bear out, most folks would be better off just blowing what they have now.

I'm with you, mate. Lots of inflationary pressure coming down the pipeline.

I hear of people using the savings from their lower mortgage payments from all the recent rate cuts to pay off the capital on their mortgages. Complete waste of money, really, because inflation's going to do the work for them in a few years instead.
 
The most obvious problems, as others have mentioned, is the math error. Putting that aside, it's still a bad idea. That money will come from somewhere, namely the taxpayers. Pouring that much spending money into the economy will cause significant inflation, reducing the spending power of those not getting the money. So, while those getting the money will be well off, everyone else will be doubly screwed as they have less money to spend because they're paying for it, and what money they have left isn't worth as much as it was before. Those getting the money will stimulate the economy, but the economic strain on everyone else will probably more than cancel out any stimulus.
 
My not-quite-understanding of economics is like this:

What is money
money is a tool to influence people to do things for you, or give you things.

But on the flip side, rich people are harder to influence with money because they they don't need your money as readily.

So if everybody were suddenly given $1 million, then everybody would require more convincing to give up their property or do things for one another, so the people are no better off for that action. So the value of the dollar becomes depreciated in that action.

Basis of the economy
Ultimately, all this wealth trickles down to buying life's essentials -- food from the farmers. Because this is both a necessary commodity, and something which you can't put in the bank because it's perishable.

Convincing the farmers to grow food and hand it to you is the basis of any economy.

Stemming out from this are all of the auxiliary services: transportation, engineering, teaching, research, etc. A net-zero flow of money representing a balanced reciprocation of work, where each individual is contributing to and taking from the produce of your community in a sustainable way. That is the ideal.


Profit and Savings
One of the features of the system however, is that most people are able to do more than net-zero work, resulting in a personal profit, of savings or accumulating assets. Assets are good, but savings and profit are strange and artificial. Where is that money coming from? If money is just being handed around from person to person, there shouldn't be any more at the end than at the beginning should there?

So basically, it is debt. The origin of those gains is from promises, not actual money.

Savings are themselves a strange thing. What efforts people make in the past become less significant as time passes. Work is action in the present, yet assets represent work in the past.

As argued before, if everyone had lots of savings, then they would themselves require more convincing to do work, so the power of their money is less, and real value of their savings depreciates.

Spending of your savings is the basic force for inflation, because at that time you're only taking from society without contributing anything tangible.


Assets
Because everyone gains assets, they can use them as barter to get others to do work. This is normal. But assets are like a commodity. Most generally, the concept of supply and demand is tightly linked to value of any particular asset.

When I say assets, I refer to tangible assets, things that have real world value in themselves, independent of spending power of money.

When assets are not consumable and don't readily perish, like real estate, the more of it is created, the less the demand is for it, so the value of those assets depreciates.

What our assets are is a form a commodity mountain, which as it grows taller, the monetary value of those assets depreciates.

In work terms, workers make an effort to create something, and once it is created, the workers are not needed anymore. This can lead to reduced manufacturing and reduced employment.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. The ideal for a society is when we've taken care of most of our needs an no longer need to work as hard, and we can live in comfort from what we've created. Reduced employment can indicate progress.


Deflation
One of the effects of reduced employment, especially in situations where debts are still to be repaid, or if there are no savings to live off, is that people have less money to spend.

One of the effects of this is reduced spending, which means less demand of produce, and therefore less supply of it. Therefore reduced costs of produce. Therefore there is deflation, and spending power of the dollar is increased.

Notice that's a two-fold consequence: reduced employment without savings further reduces employment PLUS it causes deflation. If there is debt too, then the depreciation causes that debt to amplify.

The risk is that this escalates, where there is very high debt and very few workers, which causes that debt to spiral out of control while the dollar becomes worthless. The way to avoid that is explained below.


Inflation
Now inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing. It can help an economy that is heavily in debt. Suppose your small business is $1 million in debt, but making a profit of $1000 per day. Then suppose there is sudden economic inflation which shifts the value of the dollar -- so now you are making $2000 per day and your debt appears to be relatively halved.

So inflation counteracts debt, in just the same way as it weakens the value of savings. Economics relies on this. It removes those strange artificial things called 'savings'.

One of the effects of reduced employment with savings, is that if people begin to spend their savings, it leads to inflation.


So in conclusion, savings are a good contingency for stabilizing the value of the dollar in times of reduced employment, even though there is a risk of inflation make those savings worthless.


And that's how economics works.
 
Last edited:
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top